^^^^ : 







^ \ 










"^ ^'''^ 






.0 













<^. 






'•t^o« 













*mh 



I',c 



THE 

SLAVE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA. 

(George III. to Abraham Lincoln.) 



By HYPATIA BRADLAUGH. 

■ -^ • 

LECTURE I. 

This sketch of the slave struggle in America commences with the 
reign of George III., but it is necessary to glance over the 
history of our colonisation of North America to understand out 
of what diverse material the British-American colonies were 
built uj). A few words on the condition of the colonies in 
regard to slavery prior to the War of Independence will also help 
us to the better comprehension of the subsequent struggle. 

Our first permanent settlement was in the year 1606, in the 
reign of James I., under a charter granting to Sir Thomas Gates 
and others territory, then known as Virginia, territory which Sir 
Walter Raleigh had thrice attempted to colonise, and which had 
been called Virginia after the Virgin Queen Elizabeth. The 
colony was to be governed by a local council, appointed and 
removable at the will of the Crown. The local council was to 
be directed by another council sitting in England. Allegiance 
to the Crown was strictly insisted upon, and the royal authority 
made supreme. In 1619 there was much discontent in the 
colony, and the governor, Sir George Yeardley, called a general 
council, composed of representatives from the different planta- 
tions in the colony, and these exercised legislative functions. 
This is worth noting as the first representative legislature that 
ever sat in America. In 1624 the Crown demanded and ob- 
tained the surrender of the charters. The king then appointed 
a governor and twelve councillors, who had the entire direction 
of the affairs of the colony. From that moment until the War of 
Independence Virginia was a royal province. In 1671 Sir Wm. 
Berkeley, in answer to the Lords Commissioners, staced that the 
population was about 40,000. As to instruction, he said: "I 
thank God there are no free schools nor printing ; and I hope we 
shall not have them these hundred years, for learning has 



2;m /m 

2 Slave Struggle in America. I Cc-p" 

brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world ; and 
printing has divulged them and libels against the best govern- 
ment. God keep us from both." 

Capt. John Smith, who was very prominent in the colonisation 
of Virginia, explored the coast to the north of it. He examined 
the shores from Penobscot Bay to Cape Cod, and gave such a 
glowing account of the land to Prince Charles (afterwards 
Charles I.) that he named it New England. Everyone has 
heard of those men who, driven from home by persecution, 
sailed from Southampton in the " Mayflower " and the " Speed- 
well ;" how the captain of the "Speedwell" — a tiny vessel of 
sixty tons — became dismayed at the dangers before him ; how 
the emigrants put back to Plymouth ; and how, on the 6th Sep- 
tember, 1620, the "Mayflower," a frail bark of 180 tons, scarce 
bigger than a little yacht, set out on her way alone across the 
broad Atlantic. These men — these Pilgrim Fathers — had intended 
to settle on Hudson's River, in New York, but stress of 
weather compelled tbem to land on the shores of Cape Cod. 
The place of landing was called Plymouth, and here was the 
first permanent settlement in New England. Before landing the 
Pilgrims made a voluntary compact, and a governor and other 
ofiicers were chosen to enact laws. The settlements increasing 
and being some distance apart, a House of Representatives was 
established in 1639, the members whereof were chosen annually. 

The colony of Massachusetts Bay extended three miles south 
of Charles river and three miles north of the Merrimack, and 
was settled in 1628 by Puritans, who — like those who just pre- 
ceded them — were so persecuted and oppressed at home that 
they were obliged to seek a refuge on the other side of the 
ocean. The provisions of the charter presupposed the transac- 
tion of the business of the colony in England. It took but a few 
months to discover that the plantation could not succeed under 
such circumstances, and it was unanimously decided that the 
management of the affairs should be carried on by persons 
resident within it. INIassachusetts rapidly grew in strength, gain- 
ing an ascendancy among New England colonies. She formed 
a House of Representatives, each town sending up two members. 
In 1691, the charter under William and Mary incorporated Mas- 
sachusetts, New Plymouth, Maine, and Nova Scotia into one 
province, known as Massachusetts Bay in New Ensland, and 
this continued until after the revolution. 

New Hampshire, Maine, and Connecticut were seLthd about 
the same time, or shortly after Massachusetts. 

Rhode Island was settled a little differently, by men flying 
from Massachusetts to escape religious persecution, and Roger 
Williams is still honored as the founder of the colony. Rhode 
Island was one of the earliest colonies in which liberty cf con- 
science and freedom of worship were declared in its fundamental 



V V"^.^ Slave Struggle in America. 3 

laws. Although during the two centurie?, which have now rolled 
away, there have been more than one deviation from these 
principles, the State to-day continues to make the very charter 
granted by Charles II. the basis of its laws. It is the only 
State in the Union which has not formed a new constitution of 
government. 

Thus all the New England colonies were settled by earnest 
men, Avho, rather than renounce their convictions, submitted 
to be driven from the land of their birth. 

Maryland was granted by Charles I. to Lord Baltimore, and 
was named after the Queen Henrietta Maria. An emigration, 
under the auspices of Lord Baltimore, was made almost imme- 
diately by 200 gentlemen, chiefly Roman Catholics, of rank and 
fortune, with their adherents. 

New York was originally settled by the Dutch, but England 
disputed the right of the Dutch to make any settlement in 
America; and Charles II., in 1684, granted a patent to his 
brother, the Duke of York, conveying to him, with powers of 
government, the region extending from the western bank of 
Connecticut to the eastern shore of the Delaware, together with 
Long Island. The Duke of York leased part of this, called 
New Jersey, to Lord Berkeley and Sir G. Carteret. In the 
same year a British armament surprised the Dutch colony, com- 
pelled its surrender, and proclaimed the government on behalf 
of the Duke of York, under the description of New York. Thus, 
the land claimed by the Dutch as the New Netherlands was 
broken up into the colonies of New Jersey and New York. The 
New Yorkers did not enjoy the privileges of other colonists, and 
were much discontented. At the Revolution of 1688 they im- 
mediately declared in favor of William of Orange, and the 
colony was henceforth governed by governors appointed by the 
Crown assisted by representatives of the people. 

The province of New Jersey was divided into two parts, 
which were ultimately bought of the proprietors by William 
Penn and others. Dissensions arose between East New Jersey 
and West New Jersey, and between them and New York, which 
ended in the government being resumed by the Crown. 

Pennsylvania was also originally settled by Dutch and Swedes, 
but it became the property of William Penn in 1681, whence its 
name. Penn at once invited emigration to the province, and 
Dr. Story s-ays that " under his enlightened policy a foundation 
was early laid for the establishment of a government and laws 
which were justly celebrated for their moderation, wisdom, and 
just protection of the rights and liberties of the people." 
During the first twenty years three forms of government were 
established and abandoned, until, in 1701, one was established by 
which the province was governed until the War of Independence. 
The legislative authority was vested in an assembly of delegates, 



4 Slave Struggle in America. 

chosen annually, and a governor nominated by them. Penn 
also bought the three counties of Delaware, which were then 
inhabited chiefly by Dutch and Swedes. 

Charles 11. granted certain territories, between oG*^ and 31^' 
N. lat., to Lord Clarendon and others, to be erected into a 
province named Carolina. A little later the boundaries were 
extended ; settlements were made, and temporary Governments 
were established — one in the north at Albermarle, and one in the 
south at Cape Fear. This was unsatisfatory to the proprietaries, 
and they signed a constitution for the whole of the province. 
This constitution was drawn up by John Locke, and contained 
a clause providing that every freeman was to have "absolute 
power and authority over his negro slaves," In 1729 the charter 
was surrendered and the goverument revested in the Crown. 
For convenience the province was divided into North Carolina 
and South Carolina. 

In 1732, George II. granted a charter to a company for the 
colonisation of the district lying between the rivers Savannah 
and Altamaha. The object of the company was to provide a 
refuge for the suffering poor of England, for the persecuted 
Protestants of Europe, and to attempt the conversion and civili- 
sation of the natives. This territory was to be called Georgia. 
In 1751 the charter was surrendered, and henceforward Georgia 
became a royal province. 

These few words give a rough idea of the manner of settle- 
ment of the North American colonies, and will enable you to 
judge the part that each state took in the struggle I am about 
to sketch, and to more easily comprehend the diversities of 
thought on this great slave problem. Virginia — the " Old 
Dominion " — settled by desperate adventurous spirits ; New 
England, by Puritans flying from their oppressors ; New York, 
the Jerseys, and Pennsylvania, by men of many nationalities, 
absorbed, but not annihilated, by their English conquerors ; 
Maryland, by loyalist Catholic noblemen and their followers ; 
Georgia, soon to become the great slave-state, by men claim- 
ing to civilise and convert. 

Europeans had in Europe bought and sold their fellow-men 
long before their discovery of America, and when this vast conti- 
nent was discovered they stole men from it and enslaved them — 
Columbus himself enslaved 600 and sent them to Spain to be 
sold. It was not the actual colonists v/ho introduced slavery into 
America, nor did they find it there. The native Indians were 
free men, and never — like the Africans — aided the slave-mer- 
chant, but always resisted him. It is the Dutch who may claim 
the questionable honor of being the first to introduce negro 
slavery into the English colonies. In August, 1620, a Dutch 
man-of-war entered James River, and landed twenty negroes for 
sale. The first time the colonists took part in the slave trade 



Slave Struggle in America. 5 

was when a ship belonging to James Smith, a member of a 
Boston church, and another, sailed for Guinea to trade in 
negroes. Massachusetts cried out against these traders in 
human flesh as "malefactors and murderers," and the negroes were 
ordered to be restored at the public charge to their own country, 
with a letter expressing the " indignation of the general court at 
their wrongs." Later in the same year the penalty of death 
was enacted for " man-stealing." Connecticut and New Haven 
also made it a capital offence. Providence, in Rhode Island, 
and Warwick, in Virginia, early passed laws against the holding 
of slaves. Rhode Island, in 1G52, enacted that no man, black 
or white, should be forced to serve more than ten years, or after 
the age of twenty-four. A system of indenture of white men 
had, indeed, existed from the first in Virginia, making the con- 
dition of the public mind there not altogether unfavorable to the 
idea of perpetual slavery. " The servant," Bancroft tells us, 
" stood to his master in the relation of a debtor, bound to dis- 
charge the costs of emigration by the entire employment of his 
powers for the benefit of his creditor." These men, transported 
at an expense of £8 or £10, were often sold for £4:0, £50, or even 
£60. This supply of white servants became a regular business, 
and gave rise to a class of men called " spirits," who deluded 
young people into going to America, Sometimes they were sold 
in England, and resold in Virginia to the highest bidder. At the 
end of the seventeenth century, a white man of whom five years' 
service was due, would fetch about £10, whilst a negro slave 
was worth about £20. Prisoners taken in war, men and women 
who were kidnapped, and paupers shipped by force, made the 
stock for this traffic. Nevertheless, Virginia had early dis- 
couraged negro slavery by a special tax upon female slaves, and 
the increase was at first so inconsiderable, that after seventy 
years the number of negro slaves in Virginia was proportionally 
much less than in the so-called free states at the War of Inde- 
pendence. Governor Bradstreet said, in 1680, that there were 
only about 120 African slaves in Massachusetts, and in 1720 they 
were said to number but 2000. 

Out of the original thirteen colonies South Carolina was the 
only one which began as a slave State. The climate was more 
adapted to the negro than that of the more northern colonies. 
In South Carolina slaves were so rapidly imported that in a few 
years there were nearly twice as many blacks as whites. The Dutch 
planters of New York, while very desirous of holding slaves, 
found the climate unsuitable. In proportion to population New 
York imported as many Africans as Virginia ; and European 
Amsterdam itself owned shares in a slave ship, advanced money 
for its outfit, and shared in its profit. Stuyvesant, governor of 
the New Netherlands, was instructed to use every exertion to 
promote the sale of negroes. 



6 Slave Struggle in America. 

Nor AVeis England behindhand in her patronage of this in- 
famous traffic. Sir John Hawkins was the first to engage in it, 
under the protection of Queen Elizabeth. He transported large 
cargoes of slaves to Hispaniola, and Elizabeth shared the profits. 
When the New Netherlands were broken up into New Jersey 
and New York, the Duke of York was president of the African 
Company and patron of the slave trade. The proprietaries of 
New Jersey offered a bounty of seventy-five acres for the im- 
portation of each able slave. Germany does not seem to have 
shared in the slave trade, and the German and Swedish colonies 
rested on free labor. In the reign of William III. the British 
Parliament declared that the slave trade was " highly beneficial 
to England and her Colonies." The treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, 
gave to England the privilege of supplying Spanish America with 
144,000 negroes, and as many more as she pleased in thirty 
years. As this horrible monopoly was expected to be very 
profitable, Philip V., of Spain, took a quarter of the stock, 
Queen Anne took another quarter, and the remainder was to be 
divided amongst her subjects. A tract written in 1745 calls the 
African slave trade "the great pillar and support of the British 
plantation trade in North America," In 1749 a law was passed 
laying open all African ports to English competition for "the slave 
trade is very advantageous to Great Britain." The right to 
trade in men England henceforth jealously kept for herself, as 
far as possible preventing foreigners from sharing in the profits 
of this honorable traffic. Queen Anne ordered the governors of 
New York and New Jersey to give " due encouragement to 
merchants, and in particular to the Royal African Company of 
England," and similar instructions seem to have been given to 
the other settlements. When Virginia, attempting to check the 
traffic, imposed a tax on the importation of negroes, the Royal 
African Company obtained from the English Home Government 
the annulment of the law. South Carolina even attempted to 
restrain the traffic, andwasmetbyrebuke from England. Actually 
m the very year before the Declaration of Independence we find 
the Earl of Dartmouth, the Secretary of State, who had the 
management of American affairs, saying :—" We cannot allow 
the colonies to check or discourage in any degree a traffic so 
beneficial to the nation." AVhen Georgia was settled under 
James Oglethorpe, as an asylum for the poor and persecuted, a 
rule was made prohibiting the introduction of slaves ; and while 
Oglethorpe lived he steadily refused every petition for their in- 
troduction. But the laws were soon evaded, and slaves were hired, 
at first for short periods and afterwards for life. In 1761, 
Richard Henry Lee made his first speech, in the Virginian 
House of Burgesses, in support of a prohibitory duty on the im- 
portation of Africans into that colony. This law was carried through 
the Assembly by a narrow majority, and, like nearly all other 



Slave Struggle in America. 7 

good laws, negatived by the aristocratic government in England, 
Similar laws, passed in the Virginian Assembly, were again and 
again vetoed by England ; and at last obstinate and pious George 
III. commanded the governor, "upon the pain of the highest 
displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of 
slaves would be in any respect prohibited or obstructed." The 
Assembly solemnly debated this order, for, they said, "the in- 
terest of the country manifestly requires the total expulsion of 
them." A petition was addressed to the iiing, beseeching him to 
remove his prohibition to " such laws as might check so very 
pernicious a commerce." In this petition Maryland, New Jersey, 
New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania concurred. The 
king evaded a reply. 

In a word, so long as England had any power in America she 
used that power to foster and protect the slave trade ; surely the 
most diabolical, the most demoralising traffic in which civilised 
man ever engaged. Words can but faintly picture the horrors 
of the slave ships, the sufferings endured by the captives on 
those dreadful voyages, but the mere statement of the average 
mortality will assuredly make all thoughtful people shudder. The 
average loss of life amongst the Africans while on the voyage was 
about fifteen per cent. ; and if the ships had to come into the 
West Indian harbors, about four more out of every hundred 
died. Sometimes, indeed, one-half, and even two-thirds, of the 
negro " cargo " was known to perish on a voyage. 

In 1765, when George Grenville carried the Stamp Act 
through the British Parliament, Virginia was the first to protest. 
George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee 
occupied seats in the Virginia House of Burgesses. The opposi- 
tion to this act was the first note of that cry for liberty which 
ended, not in the repeal of the act, but in the Independence of 
America. I'hen came Lord North's tax upon tea, answered at 
once by the recommendation, from Virginia, of a general 
congress, which, in the autumn of 1774, was held in Philadelphia. 
Then followed the infamous Boston Ports Bill, forcing the 
colonies into rebellion, and Washington's election as com- 
mander-in-chief over the "Continental" forces, as the newly 
raised levies of the revolted colonies were called. 

Through all the weary marches, with an army often destitute 
of food and clothing, Washington was ever beloved by his men. 
Himself untiring, he was always thoughtful about subjecting his 
men to unnecessary fatigue. He was co^itinually urging upon 
Congress the need of taking efficient means for providing the 
army with food and clothing. His care never to needlessly risk 
the lives of his men at first gave rise to unfounded accusations, 
overwhelmingly refuted by his personal courage. To the 
prisoners taken in war he was most humane, their treatment 
forming a marked contrast to tl:at of the prisoners taken by the 



8 Slave Struggle in America. 

British troops. And yet this jast and kindly man was a slave- 
holder, but a slaveholder by birth and not by inclination. He 
belonged to a class of men habituated to a system now properly 
regarded with horror and indignation. We are told that "he 
treated his negroes with kindness, attended to their comforts, 
was particularly careful of them in sickness, but never tolerated 
idleness, and exacted a faithful performance of all their allotted 
tasks." But although born and educated a slaveholder, as 
Washington advanced in years slavery became more and more 
distasteful to him, as we may see by his letters to Mr. John 
r. Mercer and later to his nephew, Lawrence Lewis. His will 
provided that all his slaves were to be liberated on the death of 
his wife. 

Why did Washington hold slaves at all ? Why did he not 
manumit them during his life-time? It was because he was born 
of slave -holding parents, educated as a slaveholder, and accus- 
tomed all his life to slaves. Before his marriage he was not sutfi- 
ciently alive to the evils of slavery. After his marriage, as we 
see by the terms of his will, he thought the emancipation of 
his slaves during hh wife's life-time would be attended with almost 
insurmountable difficulties. But so anxious was he about the 
manumission of his negroes that he made it the subject of the 
second clause of his will, the first providing for the welfare of 
his wife. 



PRICE ONE PENNY. 



London : Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, 

28, Stonecutter Street, E.G. 



THE 

SLATE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA. 

(George III. to Abraham Lincoln.) 
By HYPATIA BRADLAUGH. 



LECTURE II. 

At the first Continental Congress, held in 1774, the United 
Colonies pledged themselves that they would " neither import nor 
purchase any slave," and " would wholly discontinue the slave 
trade." The articles of association containing these pledges 
were adopted by the different colonies, and formed the basis of the 
American Constitution. North Carolina and Virginia warmly 
adopted the pledge ; and Georgia, describing slavery as an un- 
natural practice, promised to use its " utmost endeavors for the 
manumission" of its slaves. Two years later it was decided, 
without opposition, in Congress, that " no slave be imported 
into any one of the thirteen colonies." But commercial interest 
was, notwithstanding, very strong, espscially in the Southern 
States. In Jefferson's draft for the Declaration of Independence 
he arraigned George III. for forcing upon the American colonies 
that " execrable commerce." This clause was struck out by 
Congress, "in complaisance," Mr. Jefferson declared, "to South 
Carolina and Georgia." " Our Northern brethren," he added, 
" I believe felt a little tender under these censures. Although 
their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been 
pretty considerable carriers of them to others." In framing the 
Articles of Confederation, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina 
urged that their slaves were property, and if that were debated 
there was an end to confederation. The States were, therefore, 
left free to import whatever they liked, thus vetoing the decisions 
of the earlier congresses. Thus early did the Slave States make 
their influence felt by their threats of "no Union." The con- 
federation secured to the citizens of all the States the right of 
inter-citizenship. This, however, did not suit the representatives 
of Georgia and South Carolina, who desired that this privilege 
should be confined to white persons ; but eight of the thirteen 



2 Slave Struggle in America. 

States voting against it, their proposition was lost. Notwith- 
standing all this, Mr. Wilson, in his history of the " Rise and 
Fall of the Slave Power in America," says that there is no doubt 
that at the time of the Declaration of Independence a general 
desire prevailed amongst conscientious and enlightened people 
■ — including most of the leaders of the revolution — to put an 
end to the African slave trade, believing it inconsistent with 
the doctrines they were proclaiming and the civil institutions 
they were founding. 

But slavery, fostered for so many years, was so bound up with 
the habits of the people, especially in the south, that, to quote 
Mr. Wilson's own words, it had " a tenacity of life not dreamed 
of by friend or foe." 

When the Independence of the thirteen colonies was acknow- 
ledged, in 1782, there was a large and fertile piece of land con- 
ceded to belong to the new Republic, portions of which were 
claimed by several of the States under their respective charters. 
In 1784, Virginia ceded all lands claimed by her north-west of 
the Ohio river. A committee was appointed by Congress, and 
reported a plan for the government of these lands, wherein it 
was provided that " involuntary servitude " should cease after 
1800. This clause was opposed by the Southern States, and 
ultimately struck out through their influence. The next year 
Rufus King moved for the immediate prohibition of slavery in 
the North-West territory, but his motion failed. In 1787, how- 
ever, a committee of Congress, presided over by Nathan Dane, 
of Massachusetts, reported an ordinance in which it was pro- 
vided that there should be neither involuntary servitude nor 
slavery in the lands north-west of the Ohio, and this was passed 
almost unanimously. The only vote against it was from New 
York. 

In 1787 a Convention was called to frame the Constitution of 
the United States. When the basis of representation in Congress 
came on for discussion it was determined that all the States 
should be equally represented in the Senate. For the second 
chamber — the House of Representatives — Virginia proposed one 
representative for every 40,000 inhabitants, slaves to be counted 
in the ratio of three-fifths. A very heated discussion ensued, 
the Free States justly objecting to the slaves having votes at all, 
since they would not be allowed to use the votes, which would 
be used by their masters for their injury. The long and bitter 
discussion was only brought to a close by North Carolina 
declaring that she would not confederate unless slaves were 
counted as three-fifths at least. This Southern menace of "no 
Union " induced the Committee of Detail to make further con- 
cessions. No prohibition, no tax was put upon the importation 
of slaves, and no tax was laid upon the products of slave labor — 
rice, tobacco and indigo. When these points were debated Mr. 



Slave Struggle in America. 3 

Ellsworth, a member of tlie Committee, made a speech which 
stands out beyond others for its cold cruelty, lie urged that in 
Maryland and Virginia — both, but Virginia especially, fast gain- 
ing the horrible name of " Slave-breediDg States" — it was 
cheaper to raise than import slaves ; but in the sickly rice 
swamps foreign importation was necessary, and it v/ould be un- 
just to South Carolina and Georgia to prohibit their importation. 
He added : " Let us not intermeddle ; as population increases, 
poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless." 
This debate, despite the grand and eloquent denunciations uttered 
by the more earnest advocates of abolition, ended in a compromise 
which permitted the slave trade until 1808, subject to a tax to be 
determined by Congress. Massachusetts, New Hampshire and 
Connecticut gave their votes in favor of the slave power. Shall 
we blame those New-England States for consenting to this 
measure ? Let us think for a moment of the condition of affairs. 
A terrible war, lasting over eight years, but just ended with all 
the consequences which surely follow all v/ars, just or unjust. 
Credit destroyed, the country in confusion. What was to be 
done if the Southern States refused to confederate? The 
Colonies could certainly not maintain their independence if dis- 
united. Here we have the key to the action of the New-Eng- 
land States when they conceded twenty years more life to slavery 
in North America. South Carolina demanded that fugitive slaves 
and servants should be delivered up like criminals, and an article 
was inserted enabling masters to recover their slaves escaping 
into other States. 

The first Congress which met under the constitution had to 
discuss the tax upon imported slaves. A tax of ten dollars was 
proposed, and then withdrawn under great pressure. Before 
long came memorials lamenting the evils of slavery, and praying 
for their immediate abatement. But the slave-power in Congress 
was very strong, and these memorials gave rise to the most 
excited discussion. The first debate in Congress on anti-slavery 
petitions was on the presentation of a petition from some 
Quakers to the House of Eepresentatives. Quakers were 
spoken of in the most contemptuous terms, and the representa- 
tive from Georgia wanted " to know if the whole morality of the 
world is confined to Quakers?" "The Savior," he declared, 
"had more benevolence and commiseration than they pretend 
to have, and he admitted slavery." Later a memorial, signed by 
Benjamin Franklin, was presented, in which it was urged "that 
mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike 
objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of 
happiness." The representative of South Carolina replied that 
the Southern clergy did not condemn either slavery or the slave 
trade. Georgia boasted that religion was not only not against it, 
but that "from Genesis to Revelation the current was set strong 



4 Slave Struggle in America. 

the other way." In 1792 the Southern representatives demanded 
that an anti-slavery petition should be sent back to the peti- 
tioners. To its shame the House consented, and unfortunately 
it was not the only time that the House agreed to this direct 
violation of the right of petition when these petitions came from 
abolitionists. In January, 1793, by forty-eight votes to seven, 
an Act was passed giving to slaveholders the right to seize and 
return to slavery their fugitive bondmen ; and, under color of this 
Act, not only were fugitive slaves captured, but a number of free 
colored persons kidnapped. Petitions were presented to Con- 
gress asking for protection against kidnapping. One memorial 
came from persons of African descent, natives of North Carolina, 
who had been emancipated and re-enslaved. The memorialists 
urged that, under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act, free 
colored persons were always liable to be seized and carried into 
bondage. To avoid this they had to flee from their country and 
separate from those nearest and dearest to them. This petition 
was presented by the representative of Pennsylvania, who spoke 
with horror of a reward offered for one of the petitioners, "ten 
dollars if taken alive, fifty dollars if found dead, and no questions 
asked." The Southern members asked that the petition should 
not be received, that it should be sent back to the petitioners. 
Eventually the House refused the petition. In 1799 a petition 
from some colored people, praying for a revision of the Fugitive 
Slave Act, and legislation which would tend to emancipate their 
brethren, was met by the Maryland representative, saying he 
hoped the petition would go " under the table rather than on it." 
He would make the Fugitive Act " stronger " instead of 
weakening it. Another member thought the temper of revolt 
was perceptible among the slaves, whilst arrogant Georgia hoped 
the petition would be treated with "the contempt it merited and 
thrown under the table." 

Notwithstanding the stringent provisions of the Act, slave- 
holders found much difficulty in recapturing their runaway 
slaves, and time after time efforts were made to secure a law 
which would give slaveowners more power. In 1821 the Mary- 
land representative complained to Congress of the interference 
of Quakers and others in preventing the reclamation of run- 
aways, and "significantly hinted, that if effectual means were 
not taken to secure the rights of Southern States, they might 
be driven to take up arms in support of their rights." Not- 
withstanding threatening speeches like these, all efforts to 
strengthen this infamous law were unsuccessful until 1850. If 
the slaveholders were cruel and arrogant, there were a few 
abolitionists stern and devoted. One of those " Quakers and 
others," whose proud privilege it was, at the beginning of the 
present century, to give perhaps more cause of complaint to 
slaveholders than any other private man, was Isaac T. Hopper. 



Slave Struggle in America. 5 

Scores of men and women did this man quietly and unosten- 
tatiously help away from the slave plantations to Canada. Living 
in Philadelphia — the City of Brotherly Love, as its inhabitants 
are fond of styling it — in a Free State just bordering on a Slave 
State, Hopper's activity and ready wit saved many a colored 
fugitive from the slave-hunter's ferocity. Slaves residing for 
six months in Philadelphia, with the knowledge and consent of 
their masters, were then free by law, and Isaac Hopper took 
care to acquaint any slave brought into the city by visitors with 
this fact. In his house runaway slaves were always sure of 
finding food and shelter until they were ready to resume their 
flight. In consequence of the ever-ready aid he extended 
towards these persecuted people, he and his family were exposed 
to insult and even to violence. Southerners thought on his 
name with that bitter hate born of impotent rage. They could 
never catch the wary Hopper in flagrante delicto. They tried to 
revenge themselves upon his son, and nearly succeeded. The 
young man, then a lawyer in New York, had business in 
Savannah, and was there pointed out by a slave catcher — for the 
unhappy condition of affairs had even produced men who made 
the hunting of their fellow-men a profession — and while quietly 
supping at his hotel, John Hopper's room was broken into by 
a gang of violent men, who struck and spat upon him. They 
violently seized him, and bade him say his last prayers. The 
proprietor of the hotel urged the mob to carry Hopper down- 
stairs : he was afraid for the safety of his building. At this 
moment the Mayor arrived, and had Hopper seized and put into 
a cell, there to await his trial. All night the infuriated Southern 
gentlemen howled round the prison, and were with difficulty 
restrained from breaking in. To pass away the time they 
erected a gallows, and got ready a lot of feathers and tub of tar. 
A storm came on and the crowd reluctantly dispersed before its 
fury. The prisoner, by connivance of the Mayor, with much 
difficulty, escaped to a ship bound for New York. 

The "Underground Railroad" boasted of conveying 1,200 
slaves every year into Canada. The name is said to have arisen 
in this way : A slave escaped from Kentucky, and was vainly 
sought after by his master. At last the master abandoned the 
search, saying, with some oaths, that the Abolitionists " must 
have a railroad underground by which they run off niggers." 
The term "Underground Railroad" was adopted by a set of 
men who had a certain systematic method of carrying off slaves 
from the plantations into Canada. The places where there were 
people willing to receive the runaways were called "stations," 
and at these stations trustworthy people acted as "conduc- 
tors." Friendly Abolitionists in the Slave States cautiously 
made themselves acquainted with slaves desirous of escaping 
from bondage. They either personally delivered the fugitive to 



6 Slave Struggle in, America. 

the next " conductor," or, if that were too dangerous, gave the 
slave all necessary instructions, and set his face towards the 
North Star. 

The Abolitionists I propose to tell you about first are: 
Elias Hicks, Benjamin Lundy, and William Lloyd Garrison, and 
the history of their work will give us some insight into the early 
Abolition movement, in which these men took so prominent a 
part. 

Elias Hicks, as doubtless most of j'^ou know, was a Quaker. 
He published his first work upon African slavery in the year 

1814. _ His unvarying hostility to slavery gave much offence ta 
the Friends, and charges were brought against him which ended 
in a division of their body. The opponents of Hicks were hence- 
forth called "The Orthodox," and his adherents " Hicksites," 
or " Friends." So uncompromising was his opposition to slavery, 
that he not only preached against it in the North and in the 
South, in New York and Pennsylvania, in Virginia and the 
Carolinas, but he would not eat anything, nor wear anything, 
produced by the labor of slaves. We are told how, when he lay 
dying, his friends happened to put a cotton coverlet over him. 
He pushed it from him with all his feeble strength, and not until 
the coverlet was changed for a woollen blanket did he become 
tranquil. Elias Hicks was denounced by the clergy as an 
Atheist, and but a few years ago a representative was ex- 
pelled from the Legislature on the ground that he was a 
" Hicksite." 

But a man who did far more effective service in the early 
stage of the great anti-slavery movement was Benjamin Lundy. 
Born in New Jersey in 1789, of Quaker parents, he went, at 
the age of nineteen, to Wheeling, in Western Virginia, where 
he worked for a saddler. Wheeling was at this time a great 
thoroughfare of the slave-trade, and "coffles" of slaves were 
frequently passing through the city. The lad's heart was much 
moved. " 1 heard," he says, " the wail of the captive, I felt his 
pang of distress, and the iron entered my soul." Words which, 
if we may judge from his after life, must truly have pictured 
his feelings when he beheld the coffles of manacled victims. In 

1815, Benjamin Lundy formed an anti-slavery society in Ohio, 
where he had settled with his family. It was called the " Union 
Humane Society," and soon had 600 members in that part of 
the state. He then started a paper called the Genius of Universal 
Emancipation, which after a few months he took to Tennessee. 
From Tennessee he went to Philadelphia — six hundred miles on 
horseback in midwinter — to attend the American Convention 
for the Abolition of Slavery. In 1824 he moved his paper from 
Tennessee to Baltimore, journeying thither on foot. On the way 
he delivered his first anti-slavery lecture at Deep Creek, in North 
Carolina, and then gave fifteen or twenty more lectures in 



Slave Struggle in America. 7 

different parts of the State. He assisted in forming several anti- 
slavery societies, and, fioally arriving at Baltimore, found himself 
very " coolly'' received. His articles against the domestic slave 
trade so exasperated the Baltimore slave -dealers, that he was 
brutally assaulted in the streets, and at last compelled to leave 
the city. In 182G there were 140 anti-slavery societies, 106 of 
which were in the Southern States. Speaking approvingly of a 
resolution of an Ohio anti-slavery society, that it would support 
no persons for office who were not opposed to slavery, Benjamin 
Lundy urged that it was a great mistake to think that the Free 
States had nothing to do with slavery — they guaranteed the 
-oppression of the colored man. In 1828 Lundy went into the 
Eastern States ; at Boston he could not hear of one Abolitionist 
resident there. In the house where he boarded he met William 
Lloyd Garrison, who aided him in getting up meetings. Lundy 
then visited New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, and New 
York, travelling most of the time on foot, and delivering forty- 
tliree anti-slavery addresses on his way. Some time after he 
persuaded Lloyd Garrison to come and take charge of the 
Genius, which was changed from a monthly to a weekly journal, 
and conducted in the interest of temperance, emancipation, and 
peace. Lloyd Garrison's attacks on the domestic slave trade, 
and the conduct of a New-England ship-master in taking a cargo 
•of slaves to the New Orleans' Market, led to his prosecution, 
trial, and imprisonment. Benjamin Lundy was himself perse- 
cuted, and so much outrage and violence were offered him that 
he was compelled to leave the city and remove his paper to 
Washington. The Genius failing, he started another in Phila- 
delphia, which was afterwards taken up by J. G. Whittier, the 
Quaker poet, under the name of the Pennsylvania Freeman. Lundy 
then went west, and again tried to bring out his paper, but was 
attacked by fever and died at the age of fifty-one. In ten 
years— from 1820 to 1830— he travelled 25,000 miles, 5,000 
of these on foot. He visited nineteen states, and delivered 
more than 200 lectures. Travelling in this way ho printed his 
paper wherever he happened to be. He carried with him the 
type "heading," "column rules," etc., and brought out the 
' Genius from any office he could. Sometimes he paid for its 
publication by working as a journeyman printer, and at other 
times supported himself by working at his saddler's trade. 

The name of William Lloyd Garrison is indelibly written on 
the pages of the story of the abolition struggle. So great, so 
important was the part he played that an account, however 
slight, of the slave struggle in America would be of but little 
worth if it did not contain his name. W. L. Garrison was born 
in Massachusetts in 1804, was taught printing and began editing 
at the age of twenty-one. He edited many different papers in 
various towns, but finally, in 1831, he brought out the Liberator, 



8 Slave Struggle in America. 

which he edited for thirty-five years. He claimed for the slave 
"complete and immediate emancipation," no gradual emancipa- 
tion, no packing the slave off to distant lands to find a home 
where he could, but " complete and immediate emancipation." 
He and Elizabeth Heyrick in England, sounded this note 
almost simultaneously. In speaking of Benjamin Lundy I told 
you how Lloyd Garrison was sentenced to fine and imprison- 
ment. Arthur Tappan — one of two brothers whose earnest 
and unvarying devotion in this cause deserves far more than a 
passing mention — paid the fine, and after seven weeks' imprison- 
ment Lloyd Garrison was liberated. From prison he went 
north, delivering anti-slavery lectures as he went, always urging 
immediate and unconditional emancipation. 

Lloyd Garrison's language was denounced as vituperative, 
denunciatory, and severe. Even some most friendly to him were 
frightened by his passionate earnestness. But hear how he 
defends himself. " I am aware,'" he says, "that many object to 
the severity of my language ; but is there not cause for severity? 
I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On 
this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with modera- 
tion. No ! — no ! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a 
moderate alarm ; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the 
hands of the ravisher ; tell the mother to gradually extricate her 
babe from the fire into which it has fallen ; but urge me not to 
use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — 
I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a 
single inch — and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is 
enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten 
the resurrection of the dead!" It is not wonderful that his 
enemies trembled beneath the lash of his tongue ; his pen, we 
are told, was, "if possible, more severe, caustic, and exas- 
perating than his speech." While friends generally doubted and 
questioned, the slaveholders were stung to madness. In South 
Carolina a reward of 1,500 dollars was offered for the appre- 
hension and conviction of anyone circulating the Liberator. In 
the district of Columbia twenty dollars' fine or thirty days' 
imprisonment was awarded to any free colored person for taking 
the Liberator from the post, and if unable to pay the fine or 
prison fees he was to be sold into slavery. In Georgia 5,000 
dollars were offered for the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of 
the editor. All this had no effect in frightening William Lloyd 
Garrison. "I am not discouraged," he says, "I am not dis- 
mayed, but bolder and more confident than ever." 

PRICE ONE PENNY. 



London : Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugii, 

28, Stonecutter Street, E.G. 



THE 

8LAVE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA. 

(George III. to Abraham Lincoln.) 



By HYPATIA BRADLAUGH 



LECTURE III. 

The American Colonisation Society, while it pretended to 
exist solely in the interest of the slave, was bitterly hostile 
to abolition and abolitionists. Garrison, like everyone else, 
was at first favorably inclined towards the society; but 
having examined its claims to confidence, said he found in 
its publications " little else than sinful palliations, fatal conces- 
sions, vain expectations, exaggerated statements, unfriendly 
representations, glaring contradictions, naked terrors, deceptive 
assurances, unrelenting prejudices, and unchristian denunciations. 
These discoveries affected my mind so deeply I could not rest, 
.... it was evident to me that the great mass of its supporters 
in the north did not realise its dangerous tendency." Perceiving 
its fatal effects, he was "urged by an irresistible impulse to 
attempt its removal." What, then, was the Colonisation Scheme ? 

Long before the establishment of the Society, Dr. Hopkins 
and others had proposed plans for taking all colored people from 
America to Africa and settling them there, and this was suppor- 
ted by those who were against emancipation and yet wished to 
get rid of the free negroes. In 1806, Virginia decreed that 
emancipated slaves should leave the state within a year, or be 
again reduced to slavery. Prominent men, like Henry Clay, 
said the colonisationists, were working in a noble cause, they 
would "rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not a 
dangerous portion of the population." John Randolph said the 
scheme "must materially tend to secure the property of every 
master in the United States in his slaves." It was asked : " What 
right have the children of Africa to a home in the white man's 
country? " The free colored people held meetings everywhere, 
protesting against what they justly called the cruelty of the 
scheme ; they would never voluntarily separate themselves from 
the slave population of the country. 

In 1818 the Missouri territory — part of which is now known 
as Arkansas — sought admission as a State into the Union. In 



2 Slave Str higgle in America. 

the following year the House considered a Bill authorising it to 
form a constitution and enter the Union. An amendment was 
proposed, providing that all persons born after the admission of 
Missouri should be free, and also for the gradual emancipation of 
those who were then slaves. The House sustained the amend- 
ment by seventy-nine votes to sixty-seven. This rendered the 
Southerners excited and violent. The representative from Vir- 
ginia accused Mr. Livermore (of New Hampshire), who had made 
a most eloquent speech in support of the amendment, of attempt- 
ing to excite a servile war. As usual, dissolution of the Union was 
threatened ; and the representative from Georgia declared that 
the Abolitionists were kindling a fire which "could be extin- 
guished only in blood." The clause forbidding the introduction 
of slavery, and a modified clause providing that children born 
after the admission of the State should be set free at the age of 
thirty-five, was passed by the House. The Senate, by large 
majorities, struck these clauses out of the Bill. The House, by 
a very narrow majority, refused to concur. Neither would yield, 
and the Bill for the admission of Missouri was lost. 

In the following December, territorial government was asked 
for the southern part of the INIissouri Territory, to be called the 
Arkansas Territory. The prohibition of slavery was moved, and 
Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, accused the supporters 
of this motion with being under the influence of what he was 
pleased to call "Negrophobia." An angry debate upon this 
motion ended in the Bill passing the Plouse without any restric- 
tion on slavery. In the Senate a motion of the Pennsylvania 
senator to prohibit slavery was lost, and Arkansas was delivered 
into the hands of the slaveholders. 

Once more the Missouri Bill came on for discussion, and again 
the House and the Senate disagreed. Heated discussions in the 
two Chambers resulted in a most disastrous compromise. The 
Senate wanted Maine included in the Missouri Bill, but consented 
to yield this point if the House would strike out the prohibition of 
slavery, and insert its inhibition in the territories ceded by France 
north 36^ 30' parallel. By this not only the Territory of 
Arkansas, but the State of Missouri were abandoned to the 
demoralising influence of the slaveholder. 

So great was the agitation caused by these long and acrimo- 
nious debates, so triumphant was the South at the result, that 
Jefferson himself was alarmed and shrank back, declaring, as 
Henry Wilson says, that the fury of the strife fell on his ear 
" like the fire-bell at midnight." The whole of the North was 
greatly excited. PubHc meetings were held and memorials and 
petitions sent in to Congress. The legislature of Pennsylvania 
unanimously supported the prohibition of slavery in Missouri ; 
they said that bringing Missouri into the Union as a slaveholding 
state was a measure which would " spread the crimes and cruel- 



Slave Struggle in America 3 

ties of slavery from the banks of the Mississipi to the shores of 
the Pacific." This Missouri struggle opened the eyes of many 
hitherto blind to the evils of slavery, and urged those already 
mindful of its iniquities to harder and more determined work. 
At the same time the South, elated and encouraged by its success, 
became even more persistent and united in extending and con- 
solidating the slave power. Missouri, in due course, formed her 
Constitution, which not only established slavery, but provided 
that laws should be passed preventing free negroes, or mulattoes, 
on any pretext whatever, from coming into or settling in the 
State. When the Constitution came to be debated in the Senate, 
it was moved that it should not be construed that the assent of 
Congress was given to anything in the Constitution which might 
contravene the clause in the United States Constitution " that 
the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges 
and immunities of the several States." This very proper motion 
was lost, and the Senate agreed to the admission of Missouri. 

In the House of Kepresentatives there was much debate upon 
the resolution of admission, and it was ultimately rejected. The 
Senate resolution was referred to a committee of thirteen, who 
reported in favor of a compromise amendment. The House at 
first accepted the report and then rejected it on its third reading ; 
afterwards reconsidered it and again threw it out. Henry Clay, 
always notable for his support of slavery, moved for a joint 
special committee of the two Chambers, to consider and report 
what action should be agreed upon. The committee reported a 
compromise resolution, the Bill passed the House by a majority 
of six, and the Senate by two to one. The Missouri struggle, 
enduring more than two years, ended in the complete triumph of 
the slave power. 

Then came the question. Shall Illinois be slave ? AVhile the 
Missouri problem was agitating the length and breadth of the 
United States, Illinois had been fighting her own battle. 
Should she — in spite of the ordinance of 1787 — add her name to 
the increasing list of Slave States ? 

Illinois had been largely settled by Southerners, and when it 
became a Territory it aflirmed the inhuman black laws already 
existing. These laws provided that slaves brought into the 
Territory could be compelled to make contracts to serve the mas- 
ters for any number of years, even exceeding the probable term 
of their natural life, or could be sent back to perpetual servi- 
tude. Children under fifteen years of age, and those born after 
entering the Territory, were also constrained to serve for a 
period of years. Many negroes were held in bondage as severe 
as if they had been in the South, and this was surely a direct 
violation of the ordinance of 1787. lUinois formed a constitu- 
tion in which the introduction of slavery was forbidden and 
contracts for a longer period than one year prohibited. But 



4 Slave Struggle in America. 

directly Illinois was admitted into the Union she framed a code 
of black laws similar to those of Virginia and Kentucky. Persons 
bringing free negroes into the State were liable to fine, and 
negroes found without a certificate of freedom might be sold 
into slavery for one year. Free negroes had to give sureties,. 
and when convicted of anj^ petty offence were punished with 
the lash. 

When Missouri was admitted, Illinois landowners grew 
jealous at the number of wealthy men who passed through 
Illinois with their "droves" of negroes to settle in the new 
State, and they then turned their energies to making Illinois into 
a Slave State also. They attempted to call a Convention for the 
purpose of amending the constitution. This required the votes 
of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature, ratified by the 
vote of the people. Slavery carried the day in the Senate, but 
wanted a vote in the House. Now the slavery advocates had 
two immediate objects, one, to call a Convention ; two, to send 
a pro-slavery man to the United States Senate. As it happened 
there was a vacant seat in the House, for which there were two 
candidates; one in favor of a pro-slavery Senator and against the 
Convention, the other in favor of the Convention, and against 
the pro -slavery man. It is not easy to imagine the trickery 
resorted to by the slaveholders to meet this dilemma. First, the 
candidate in favor of the pro-slavery Senator was admitted, and 
after he had given his vote expelled to make way for the second 
candidate, who would vote for the Convention. But the slavery 
advocates counted without their host if they thought their cause 
so easily won. The governor of Illinois was Edward Coles, a 
man of high honor and culture. He had emancipated his own 
slaves and given them lands to settle upon in Illinois. He was 
the steadfast enemy of this infamous slave power, which was 
getting deeper and firmer hold of the States, and threatening to 
crush their vitality. Governor Coles called upon the people not 
to ratify this Act of the Legislature. For fifteen months the 
contest lasted, insult and threat, fraud and brutal violence were 
the weapons of the would-be slaveholders. After much passion- 
ate and bitter feeling on both sides, the advocates of liberty 
were successful amongst the people, and the Convention was 
rejected by a majority of over 2,000. Mr. Wilson says: "The 
victory was complete and final. The friends of liberty through- 
out the country, dejected by the result of the Missouri struggle, 
found some compensation in the thought that Illinois had been 
saved to freedom." 

In the year 1837 the anti-slavery cause received what ha& 
been called its " baptism of blood." Elijah P. Love joy gave hi& 
life for his fellow-men. All causes have their martyrs, and that 
the anti-slavery cause should have hers is not wonderful ; her 
adversaries were necessarily brutal and demoralised. 



Slave Struggle in America. 5- 

Elijah P. Lovejoy Wcas a native of Maine, who, in 1832, esta- 
blished a religious paper in St. Louis, in which he published such 
strictures on slavery as to raise a perfect outcry against him. 
In answer alike to entreaties and menaces he asserted his right 
to discuss the slave problem. " We have slaves, it is true," he 
said, " but I am not one." lie affirmed the liberty of the press 
and refused to submit to dictation. The proprietors were 
frightened, and requested him to resign his editorship. The 
Observer, as the paper was called, fell into other hands as pay- 
ment for a debt, and the new owner gave it to ^Ir. Lovejoy. 
Four years later a mulatto was in jail for fatally stabbing one 
man and wounding another who had arrested him. An infuriated 
mob broke into the prison, and, seizing the mulatto, carried hun 
beyond the city, where they chained him to a tree and burned 
him. Judge Lawless, in charging the grand jury, said that if a 
mob were carried away by " mysterious, metaphysical, and almost 
electric frenzy" to deeds of violence and blood, the participators 
-are absolved from guilt and not proper subjects for punishment. 
Lovejoy was not slow to comment on the judge's Jesuitical justi- 
fication of this atrocious deed. An angry crowd entered and 
destroyed Love joy's office. He removed his press to Alton, but 
it was seized on the banks of the river and broken into frag- 
ments. A number of citizens met and agreed to _ reimburse 
Lovejoy for his loss. He told them that it was a religious, and 
not an abohtion, press that he wished to establish. Although 
an enemy to slavery, he was no Abolitionist ; he was opposed to 
immediate emancipation. He would, however, hold himself at 
liberty to write and speak what he pleased on any subject. 

St. Louis threatened Illinois with loss of the trade of the Slave 
States unless she could find some means of staying Lovejoy's pen. 
His office and press were again destroyed. Another press was 
purchased, this too was seized by a furious mob, and thrown 
in fragments into the Mississippi. Lovejoy was mobbed and in- 
sulted. To quote his own words, he was " hunted up and down 
like a partridge on a mountain." He was " threatened with the 
tar-barrel," " waylaid every day." His life was " in jeopardy 
every hour." It was demanded that he should leave Alton. To 
this, after a moving allusion to his sick wife kept in " continued 
alarm and excitement," and, " driven night after night from her 
sick-bed into the garret to save her hfe from brickbats and the 
violence of the mob," he replied : "I know you can tar and 
feather me, hang me up, or put me in the Mississippi. But what 
then ? Where shall I go ? I have been made to feel that if I 
am not safe in Alton I am not safe anywhere." No, he would 
not leave. " If I die I am determined to make my grave in Alton." 
The city was intensely excited— vile epithets, fierce invective, 
and abuse of all kinds were freely indulged in, and the arrival 
of another press was a signal for turning violent words into 



6 Slave Struggle in America, 

violent deeds. The press, on its arrival, was safely stored, and 
about twelve friends remained with it to protect it. Before 
long the building was attacked, stones were thrown, windows 
broken, and shots fired. Cries of " Burn them out," " Fire the 
building, and shoot every cursed Abolitionist," were heard, and 
ladders being brought the roof of the building was fired. Five 
of the defenders came out, and, firing on the crowd, dispersed 
them. Later, Mr. Lovejoy and two friends came out. They 
were fired upon, one friend was wounded, and Mr. Lovejoy 
received five balls — three in his breast — and expired instantly. 
The rest immediately offered to surrender but were refused, and 
one of the little band, trying to come to terms with the rioters, 
was badly wounded. The mob seized the press, and, breaking it 
into fragments as before, cast it into the Mississippi. The next 
day Elijah Lovejoy's body was taken to his house "amid the heart- 
less rejoicing and scoffings of those who had destroyed his 
property and taken his life." 

It was not unnatural that slaveholders should desire to keep 
colored people in the darkest ignorance, and should permit as 
few as possible to learn to read. They could not always destroy 
printing presses, and occasionally it was not altogether convenient 
to murder men determined to expose the evils of slavery. Con- 
sequently there were but few colored schools, and in 1831 the 
free colored people held a convention in Philadelphia, to which 
delegates were sent from the several States. It was resolved to 
try to establish a collegiate school at New Haven in Connecticut. 
Connecticut was justly celebrated for its educational institutions, 
but the proposal to add another jewel to its crown of honor, by 
the establishment of an institution for the education and higher 
culture of colored youth, met with the most determined opposi- 
tion. A meeting, summoned by the Mayor of Xew Haven, 
resolved to "resist the establishment of the proposed college in 
this place by any lawful means." Only one person had the 
courage to oppose this resolution. The colored people being 
thus frustrated in their attempts to educate their youth in 
Connecticut, the trustees of the Noyes Academy, Canaan, in the 
neighboring State of New Hampshire, opened their doors to 
colored students, who gladly seized the opportunity, but, alas, 
were not left long to enjoy it. In 1835 the New Hampshire 
Patriot, related how a committee appointed for that purpose at 
a town's meeting, aided by three hundred persons, including the 
most respectable and wealthy farmers in the neighborhood, 
and 100 yoke of oxen, took the building away. 

INliss Prudence Crandall — a Quaker lady with a high reputa- 
tion as a teacher — established a school in Canterbury for the 
higher education of girls. Shortly after starting her school she 
admitted a colored girl named Sarah Harris, who was very 
desirous of getting " a little more learning — enough to teach 



Slave Struggle in America. T 

colored children." The parents of the white " young ladies " 
objected to their daughters going " to school with a nigger," and 
gave Miss Crandall the alternative of dismissing the colored girl 
or losing her white pupils. In answer to this, Miss Crandall, at 
the commencement of the following term, advertised that her 
school would be open to young ladies, little misses of color, and 
others who might wish to attend. Miss Cmndall's next-door 
neighbor was one Andrew Judson, afterwards member of Con- 
gress and judge of the District Court of the United States, and 
this gentleman was much shocked on finding that negro girls 
were to be educated so near to his dwelling. He led a cowardly 
persecution against Miss Crandall and her pupils, and openly 
declared his purpose of frustrating her noble aim. Notwith- 
standing, the school was opened with fifteen or twenty colored 
pupils. Miss Crandall was "Boycotted," her house assailed, 
and she and her pupils insulted in every way. It was sought to 
show that the negro girls came under the Vagrant Act, and were 
thus liable to summary imprisonment ; but Dr. Samuel J. May 
and others gave bonds for 10,000 dols., and consequently this 
plan to drive away poor girls, whose only fault was the color of 
their skin, broke down. Judson and the town authorities then 
secured the passage of a law through the legislature, prohibiting 
the establishment of schools for the education of colored persons 
not inhabitants of the State, without the permission of the select 
men of the town — a permission then, of course, impossible to 
obtain. The inhabitants of Canterbury were so overjoyed at the 
passing of this truly generous measure that cannon were fired, 
bells rung, and there was a general rejoicing as at a great victory. 
Miss Crandall was arrested, committed for trial and placed in a 
cell, only lately occupied by a murderer who had left it for the 
scaffold. Miss Crandall was bailed out the following morning, 
but the persecution was carried on with unabated vigor. The 
physicians refused to visit the sick members of her family ; the 
trustees of the church forbade her attendance at church. The 
next year Miss Crandall's case came on for trial, with Judson the 
persecutor as prosecutor. The Judge held the new law to be 
constitutional, but the jury refused to convict. It is said that 
seven were for conviction and five for acquittal. The perse- 
cutors obtained a new trial, and this time the jury convicted. 
Miss Crandall's friends appealed to the highest tribunal, who 
quashed the case upon a technical objection, but refused to give 
any decision as to the constitutionality of the law. Despite per- 
secution, insult, and imprisonment, brave Miss Crandall again 
tried her educational work ; but her house was assailed in the 
middle of the night, and rendered almost uninhabitable. At last 
this estimable woman — who had carried on so brave a fight in 
this noble cause— felt compelled to yield, and, acting under the 
advice of her friends, broke up her school. 



^ Slave Struggle in America. 

In 1833 the American Anti-slavery Society was organised, and 
the "declaration of sentiments " was drawn up by Garrison and 
adopted with but slight alterations. Arthur Tappan was chosen 
President ; Elizur Wright, William Lloyd Garrison, and Dr. Cox, 
secretaries. Dr. Samuel J. May was one of the Vice-presidents, 
and on the Board of Managers we find the names of John G. 
Whittier and Benjamin Lundy. 

Lloyd Garrison found many women willing to aid him in his 
advocacy of immediate emancipation. Among the more familiar 
names to us are Mrs. Lydia Maria Child, Miss Abby Kelley, and 
Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose. In 1837, two Quaker ladies, named 
Sarah and Angelina Grimke, produced some stir in the United 
States. They had been South Carolina slaveholders, but had 
liberated their slaves and come North to work in the cause of 
emancipation. Many Abolitionists disapproved of women pub- 
licly advocating abolition, and a still larger number seemed to 
object to women holding any official position in the society. In 
consequence of this and other causes of dissension a great 
number of members left the original society and formed a new 
one, called the Foreign and American Anti-Slavery Society. 
Among those who had been connected with the old society 'from 
the beginning, and who now left it, we find the honored name of 
John G. Whittier. 



PRICE ONE PENNY. 



London : Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bkadlaugh, 

28, Stonecutter Street, E.G. 



T II E 

SLAVE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA. 

(George III. to Abraham Lincoln.) 



By HYPATIA BRADLAUGH. 



LECTURE IV. 

John G. Whittier was appointed Secretary to the National 
Anti-slavery Convention in 1833, and a member of that Conven- 
tion noted of the Quaker poet that " his broad, square forehead 
and well-cut features, aided by his incipient reputation as a poet, 
made him quite a noticeable feature in the Convention." 
Thirty years after Whittier had signed the Declaration of 
Sentiments he says: "I love, perhaps too well, the praise and 
goodwill of my fellow-men ; but I set a higher value on my 
name as appended to the Anti-Slavery Declaration of 1833 than 
on the title page of any book." Mr. Wilson says : "In counsel 
and action always sagacious and practical, he participated in 
those movements which finally resulted in the organisation of 
that powerful body which overthrew the system of human 

bondage and dethroned the slave power All along the 

struggle these lyrics of the meek-visaged, but fiery-souled 
Quaker rang out their notes of warning and appeal." His "Massa- 
chusetts to Virginia," " Stanzas for the Times," and a Vir- 
ginia slave -mother's farewell to her daughters, once read will 
not be quickly forgotten. If to-day we, here in England, are 
moved by the fierce indignation, bitter sarcasms, and stern 
rebuke of his verses, we can well imagine how great was their 
influence fifty years ago in America. I quote the following lines 
from his "Stanzas," which may perchance suit other countries- 
and other times, as they did America fifty years ago : — 

" Up, then, in Freedom's manly part; 
From greybeard eld to fiery youth, 
And on the nation's naked heart 
Scatter the living coals of Truth ! 
Up, — while ye slumber deeper yet 
The shadow of our fame is growing. 
Up, — while ye pause the sun may set 
In blood, around our altars flowing ! " 



2 Slave Struggle in America. 

Not only did the anti -slavery cause have her poets, but she- 
had on her side some of America's most eloquent men. Wendell 
Phillips, "the silver-tongued Demosthenes" as he has been 
called, made his first speech in Faneuil Hall, at a meeting called 
to express the horror of the Boston citizens at the murder of 
Lovejoy. This magnificent speech, delivered amidst the most 
excited outcries and uproar from the partisans of slavery, placed 
Wendell Phillips high amongst American orators ; nor have his 
subsequent speeches diminished this fame. A learned and 
cultured man, his silver tongue and fluent pen were always 
ready in the cause of liberty. He was fearless in his denuncia- 
tion of wrong-doing and merciless in his scathing criticism of 
the wrong-doer. 

It was not unnatural that the intense excitement which pre- 
vailed throughout the States should in many places find its 
expression in violence. Riots were frequent, and poor Lovejoy's 
presses were not the only ones to suffer. In May, 1836, J. G. 
Birney brought out an anti-slavery paper called the Philan- 
thropist in Cincinnati. Birney had been a great Kentucky slave- 
holder ; but, becoming convinced of the crime of slavery, he 
liberated all his slaves, and devoted himself to the advocacy of 
immediate emancipation. In July a mob entered his oflice at 
midnight and destroyed his press and types, uttering the most 
violent threats unless his paper were destroyed. A meeting 
was held ; it was determined to prevent the publication or dis- 
tribution of Abolition papers in Cincinnati. As a result of this, 
a crowd entered and pillaged the oflice of the PMlaiithropist after 
dark. Having finished there, the rioters went to Mr. Birney's 
house, and, not finding him, wreaked their vengeance on the 
homes of the poor colored people. This mob was organised by 
wealthy influential men, amongst whom were ministers and 
Church members. In 1834 Lewis Tappan's house was sacked 
and damaged. In August of the same year there was a riot in 
Philadelphia, which lasted three nights. Forty-four houses in- 
habited by colored people were damaged, and many quite des- 
troyed. "Many blacks were brutally beaten, one was killed 
outright, and another drowned in attempting to swim the 
Schuylkill to escape his tormentors." One Methodist minister, 
speaking against slavery in Massachusetts, was assaulted by a 
mob and his notes torn to pieces ; another, speaking in New 
Hampshire, was dragged before the justice of the peace and 
sentenced to three months' imprisonment as a "common rioter 
and brawler." Churches and public halls were closed against 
Abolitionists. One hundred and twenty-five Boston citizens 
were refused the use of Faneuil Hall itself for an anti-slavery 
meeting, and but a short time after it was granted to fifteen 
hundred, who had asked for it for pro -slavery purposes. 

The Boston Female Anti-slavery Society announced a meet- 



Slave Struggle in America. 3 

ing in October, 1835. The conveners were menaced and threatened. 
The city was posted with notices that "the infamous foreign 
scoundrel, Thompson," would speak at the meeting, and it would 
be fair for the friends of the Union to "snake him out." One 
hundred dollars were offered to the individual who would first 
lay hands on him, "so that he could be brought to the tar kettle." 
George Thompson was the man whose brilliant advocacy of West 
India emancipation Lord Brougham acknowledged when he said, 
in 1833 : "I rise to take the crown of this most glorious victory 
from every other head, and place it upon George Thompson. 
He has done more than any other man to achieve it." The 
meeting had scarcely begun when the mayor came in, entreating 
the Boston women to dissolve their meeting, or he could not 
preserve the peace. The building was encompassed by an in- 
furiated mob. The meeting adjourned, and the rioters burst in 
shrieking for Garrison, whom they knew to be there. They 
seized him and put a rope round him; they knocked his hat 
from his head, and tore his clothes from his body. As he was 
being dragged through the streets he was rescued by the mayor 
and put into the Leverett Street jail to save him from his would-be 
murderers. This mob also was organised by wealthy, influential 
and reputedly pious men. Did space permit, I could heap in- 
stances upon instances of the violence by which the upholders of 
slavery stifled speech and fettered press. 

The Florida war was carried on through eight long years in 
the interest of Georgia slaveholders, and cost nearly forty 
million dollars and hundreds of lives. When Texas belonged to 
Mexico, slaveholders cast hungry eyes upon her fertile soil, and 
in defiance of the decree abolishing slavery throughout the 
Mexican Republic, adventurers from the Southern States 
migrated thither, carrying slaves with them. A conspiracy was 
formed to bring about the annexation of Texas, and the first 
step tov>rards it was the recognition of her Independence in 1837. 
In 1841: slavery once more carried the day, and the resolution of 
annexation " was hailed with every demonstration of uproarious 
delight, by bonfires, illuminations and volleys of artillery, by 
social revelry and mutual congratulations." The most corrupt 
influences were brought to bear on Congress — Texan scrip, land 
speculations, and gamblings in human flesh were the influences 
moving those who inflicted this new wound on liberty. In 1846 
Texas was admitted into the Union as a State. 

Everywhere the slave power gained ground. Old laws oppress- 
ing free colored people were revived ; new and harsher ones 
were enacted. In the Border States vain efforts were made on 
behalf of the colored race. In Kentucky a Convention was 
called, in 1819, for the revision of the Constitution. Meetings 
were held and resolutions passed against slavery. Eloquent 
speeches were made, and journalists wrote in favor of emancipa- 



4 Slave Struggle in America. 

tion ; but, to the bitter disappointment of all anti-slavery men, 
the Convention adopted in the new Constitution a provision 
asserting that " the right of property is before and higher than 
any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owners of a slave 
to such a slave and its increase is the same, and as inviolable as 
the right of the owner of any property whatever." Thus slavery 
showed how much stronger it really was than either its friends 
or foes believed it to be. The efforts of the friends of freedom 
seemed only to incite their adversaries to more united and deter- 
mined action. The struggles in Kentucky are illustrations of 
the conflict through all the Border States. 

Slave States and free States alike passed laws oppressing the 
colored people. " Black Laws " they were justly called. Early 
in this century Virginia had prohibited meetings or schools for 
teaching free negroes, and forbidden the preaching of slaves or 
free negroes. In 1838 she forbade free colored persons leaving 
the State for the purposes of education, on forfeiture of all right 
of return. In 1847 white persons were liable to punishment for 
instructiDg slaves. Postmasters had to give notice of the pre- 
sence of anti-slavery publications ; justices of the peace were 
required to burn any such, and punish those to whom they were 
sent. Citizenship was denied to free colored men. In 1851, if 
emancipated slaves remained in the State more than twelve 
months, they were liable to forfeit their freedom. The legisla- 
ture could not emancipate any slave or the descendant of any 
slave, but it might impose conditions on the power of slave- 
holders to emancipate their slaves, and also pass laws to relieve 
the State of its free negro population by removal or otherwise, 
and a tax was imposed upon free male negroes between twenty- 
one and forty-five to defray the expenses of the Colonisation 
Board established for their removal. Maryland forbade colored 
persons the right to testify against whites, although slaves might 
against_ negroes. The legislature was forbidden to enact any law 
abolishing the relations between master and slave. Delaware 
forbade the emancipation of free negroes to any State save 
Maryland. Free negroes might not attend camp-meetings or 
political gatherings. Missouri forbade the immigration of free 
colored persons. Schools for the instruction of negroes in read- 
ing and writing, religious meetings of negroes, were prohibited 
unless a justice of the peace or constable were present. Indeed, 
Missouri actually declared such schools and religious meetings 
unlawful assemblages. Indiana— a Free State— forbade the entry 
of negroes and mulattoes, and fined all persons who aided or 
encouraged them 500 dollars for each offence. Marriages be- 
tween white persons and those possessing one-eighth or more of 
negro blood were forbidden. Acts were passed for sending 
colored persons into Africa, annulling contracts with them, and 
prohibiting the evidence of persons having one -eighth or more of 



Slave Struggle in America. 5 

negro blood. No free colored person might come into the State 
of Illinois for the purpose of residing there ; such persons were 
liable to be prosecuted, fined, and sold to pay the fine and 
costs. In 1857 Iowa prohibited colored immigration, and would 
not permit free colored persons to testify against whites. 
Similar laws were passed in other States ; but, harsh as they 
were, many of the States in 1859 enacted others still more 
oppressive. Maryland forbade manumission. Virginia autho- 
rised the sale of free negroes who had been sentenced for 
" offences punishable by confinement in penitentiary." Louisiana 
gave colored people the alternative of slavery or of giving up 
their homes. North Carolina passed similar laws, and Georgia 
prohibited emancipation by will, declaring all such " null and 
void." 

In 1850 a Bill was passed providing for the enforcement of 
the Act for the rendition of fugitive slaves, and the passage of 
this Bill spread the greatest alarm throughout the States. It 
was estimated that there were more than 20,000 fugitives in 
the Free States. The law had passed but eight days when a 
colored man was seized in >iew York and hurried to Baltimore, 
without even being permitted to say farewell to his wife and 
children. A few days more, and a similar case occurred in 
Philadelphia. INIeetings were held, and anti-slavery men resolved 
to defend the black fugitives with their lives. Charles Sumner 
addressed a huge meeting in Faneuil Hall. " Oh ! it were well," 
he said, "that the tidings should spread throughout the land 
that here in Massachusetts that accursed Bill has found no ser- 
vant." But if the Bill found people to resist it, it also found 
people ready to carry it out. Slave -catching had become a pro- 
fession, and dogs were trained to hunt negroes. Colored men 
were shot down remorselessly in attempting to escape, and white 
people convicted of aiding such escapes were imprisoned for 
years, and fined so heavily that sometimes, unable to pay such 
fines, they lingered in jail until they died. 

In 1853 a Bill passed through Congress, dividing that vast 
region west and north-west of Missouri, and stretching right 
away to the Kocky Mountains, into two territories, the southern 
to be called Kansas and the northern Nebraska. All questions 
relating to slavery were to be left to the people or their repre- 
sentatives. Now, by the Missouri compromise all this beautiful 
land was reserved to freedom ; but in 1836 the boundaries of 
Missouri were extended far westward, and all that free land was 
covered with slaves and slave -owners— a direct violation of the 
compromise. This Act, leaving the people of Kansas and 
Nebraska to choose slavery or freedom, was also in defiance ot 
the terms of the compromise, and, inasmuch as the land was 
already covered with slave-owners, was another triumph of the 
slave power. 



6 Slave Struggle in America. 

In 1836 Charles Sumner delivered his immortal speech in 
Congress, on "The Crime against Kansas." Whittier said it 
was "a grand, a terrible phillippic, worthy of the great occa- 
sion ; the severe and awful truth which the sharp agony of the 
national crisis demanded." Two days afterwards, while Sumner 
was writing at his desk in the Senate Chamber, Preston S. Brooks, 
of infamous memory, a representative of South Carolina, came 
up to him and said : "I have read your speech twice over care- 
fully. It is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a 
relative of mine." Thereupon he struck Charles Sumner on the 
head with a stick again and again — a dozen or twenty blows — 
until his victim lay on the floor bleeding and insensible. So 
seriously was Sumner injured that despite the utmost care it 
was four years before he was pronounced convalescent. Mr. 
Slidell, of Louisiana, who was in the anteroom with some other 
Senators, when a messenger rushed through, crying out that 
some one was beating Mr. Sumner, said: "We heard the 
remark without any particular emotion. 1 remained quietly in 
my seat, and the other gentlemen did the same." He saw the 
wounded man carried out, but " did not think it necessary to 
express any sympathy." Mr. Keitt, of South Carolina, stood 
by, urging Brooks on. Henry Wilson denounced the assault as 
" brutal, murderous and cowardly," and was accordingly chal- 
lenged by Brooks. A motion was made for the expulsion of 
Brooks, iDut failed. A vote of censure was then passed by a 
vast majority. Brooks made a most insolent speech to the 
House, resigned his seat, and went back to his constituents, 
only to be returned again in two weeks triumphantly re-elected. 

In 1859 it was the turn of the pro-slavery men to quail, and 
it was one man alone — John Brown, of Osawatomie — who 
spread the direst terror and confusion all through the Slave 
States. John Brown was a Puritan, descended in a straight line 
from Peter Brown, one of the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth 
Rock on December 22nd, 1620. He was born in Connecticut 
in 1800, and taken at the age of five to Hudson, Ohio. As 
became his ancestry, he grew up into a sternly conscientious 
man : the great object of his life was to relieve the suffering 
and advocate the rights of the injured and oppressed. He was 
a most energetic and efiicient agent of the Underground Rail- 
road. Osawatomie was a town of Kansas ; and in 1856, when 
the Kansas struggle was agitating the length and breadth of the 
land, the most revolting crimes were committed within the 
territory by Southerners and pro-slavery men. John Brown 
had a small force at his command, and had utterly routed one 
lot of marauders. This so exasperated the Missourians that 
they issued a violent appeal, calling upon the " young men and 
old" to be ready to go to Kansas. Accordingly a force of 
500 men advanced on Osawatomie ; they were arrested in their 



Slave Struggle in America. 7 

march by a little band of sixteen men under the leadership of 
John Brown. This was how he earned his name of ''Osawatomie 
Brown." But it is not this little skirmish which has made him 
so famous, so honored. It is the raid on Harper's Ferry, the 
sublime daring and devotion that planned the deed, which has 
made the name of John Brown a landmark — as it were— in this 
too terrible history. 

Brown had collected a few hundred dollars and a few men, 
and when he planned his attack on Harper's Ferry (Virginia) 
he thought the slaves would rise at once and fight for liberty. 
They were ready he beheved, and needed but a head. October 
24th, 1859, was fixed for the assault ; but, fearing betrayal, the 
16th was substituted, and in that way Brown deprived himself of 
some of his little force. At 10 p.m., fourteen white and five 
colored men under Brown's leadership entered the town, " took 
possession of the United States Armory Buildings, stopped the 
trains on the railroad, cut the telegraph wires, captured a 
number of citizens, liberated several slaves, and held the town 
for about thirty hours." This heroic little band was finally over- 
come by a detachment of the U.S. Marines. Brown was badly 
wounded, eight of his company were killed or mortally hurt — 
— among these two of his sons — six were captured, and only five 
escaped. John Brown was tried and sentenced to execution. 
He died as only brave, true men know how to die, and Victor 
Hugo's words will well illustrate public opinion on his death. 
"Slaughtered," he wrote, "by the American Republic, the 
crime assumes the proportions of the nation which commits it." 
Stronger far in its effects than this rash attempt at freeing 
the bondmen of America was the nobility and grandeur of the 
mind that planned it. His life, his death made him a hero, and 
the " John Brown Song " was sung by many a regiment, when 
a year or two afterwards they fought against their own country- 
men for freedom. 

In 1859 the air was rife with sedition. South Carolina gave 
voice to the cry of " Slavery and Secession." Alabama, Missis- 
sippi, Louisiana, Florida, took up the note. In Congress the 
representative of Virginia bade the Korthern members go home 
and repress the Abolition spirit. Another member demanded 
Southern rights: "As God is my judge, I would shatter this 
Republic from turret to foundation before I would take one 
tittle less." Another— the representative of Mississippi— cried 
out : "I raise the banner of secession, and I will fight under it 
as long as blood ebbs and flows in my veins." 

Then came the Presidential election for 1860. The Republican 
Convention met in May, and selected as its candidates Mr. \V. H. 
Seward and Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln's candidature 
was confirmed on the fourth ballot. There were other candidates 
representing extreme Southern and medium views. Mr. Seward 



8 Slave Struggle in America. 

behaved nobly, notwithstanding his disappointment, because up 
to the last it had been believed that he would be the favored 
candidate. He made a tour through the Western States, advo- 
cating the Republican cause. On the 6th December Abraham 
Lincoln was elected President of the United States. On the 
10th South Carolina declared her intention to secede, and on the 
24th a proclamation was issued declaring South Carolina to be 
a '* separate, sovereign, free and independent State." Then 
followed the war between North and South, and in 1864 Con- 
gress passed the famous 13th Amendment, providing that 
"neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punish- 
ment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly con- 
victed, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject 
to their jurisdiction." 



PRICE ONE PENNY. 



London : Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, 
28 Stonecutter Street, E.G. 



H^^fi^^f'i 



mm 

















>^^/V,*o .^^ 



^^ 



^o1 



a^^ H^ .c;^ ^ 



"^ 






4, c 












N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



.V)' 






